Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Ramsey Clark: A Profile in Treason


nelms

Recommended Posts

Lawyer: Ex-U.S. attorney general to join Saddam defense

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein's attorneys will ask an Iraqi tribunal Monday for permission to add former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark to the courtroom defense team.

Khames Hameed al-Ubaidi said Clark was in Baghdad and will meet with the defense team on Sunday night or Monday morning, when the trial is scheduled to resume.

If Clark is not allowed to participate in the courtroom, he will act as a legal adviser, al-Ubaidi said.

A U.S. official close to the Iraqi High Tribunal said there have been no motions made by Hussein's attorney to have an international lawyer work on the defense team. But the official said that if the proper motion for that was filed it would probably be accepted.

Clark was attorney general under President Lyndon Johnson and has been a civil rights attorney and activist in recent years. Clark, who opposed the Iraq war, met with Hussein in February 2003, just before the U.S.-led invasion began.

"Our plan is to go to court in Baghdad on Monday morning representing the defense counsel as defense support. A fair trial in this case is absolutely imperative for historical truth to justice obviously," Clark told the Reuters news agency before leaving Amman, Jordan.(Watch Ramsey Clark explain his goals -- 2:23)

Hussein and seven other former regime members are charged with ordering the killing and torture of more than 140 civilians in the town of Dujail, 23 years ago, after a failed assassination attempt.

If convicted, Hussein and his co-defendants would face the death penalty.

When the trial resumes Monday, attorneys will ask for a three-month delay of the trial because the defense has not received some documents, al-Ubaidi said. They include death certificates for the 148 people prosecutors say were killed in Dujail. (Watch Iraqis call for Saddam's execution Saturday -- 2:10)

In addition, al-Ubaidi wants a better quality computer disk with witness statements, and he said he needs the names of witnesses.

Lawyers have said they haven't been able to devote all of their energies to the case because of security fears following recent attacks on attorneys connected with the case.

The trial has been delayed since its opening day, October 19, when Hussein's lead attorney, Khalil Dulaimi, said most of the defense lawyers were not sufficiently experienced in international law and in cases of this magnitude.

He also said the defense team wasn't informed about the start of the trial until three weeks before it began -- which he said was in violation of the tribunal regulations.

Dulaimi has insisted the defense team will not participate in the trial until a solution to protect its members is found.

Defense attorneys killed

Two attorneys working on the trial have been killed in the past two months.

Adil Muhammed al-Zubaidi, who was representing former Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, was shot to death on November 8 in an attack that left another lawyer wounded.

On October 20, a day after the trial began, Sadoon Janabi was kidnapped and fatally shot in the head. Janabi had been representing Awad Hamad Bandar, the former chief judge of Hussein's Revolutionary Court.

Janabi had refused any protection from the government, according to an Iraqi government official, and willingly appeared on videotape during the previous day's court proceedings.

The United States is working with Iraq's Interior Ministry to investigate the killings. The Iraqi government insists it is committed to protecting the judges and attorneys in the trial.

On Wednesday, a U.S. official close to the Iraqi High Tribunal said the issue of security for the defense attorneys is expected to be addressed when the trial resumes.

The court is prepared to provide full security to everyone involved in the legal proceedings, the official said.

The court also has acted on attorneys' requests to have multinational forces and the Regime Crimes Liaison Office -- the arm of the U.S. State Department charged with assisting the court -- involved in security operations, the official added.

Security options for defense attorneys "are at least as good as those" being offered to other participants in the trial, the official said.

_______________________________________________________________________

I say hang this POS from the highest tree. It'll be interesting to see how many of our more "progressive" members come to this guy's defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in essence, you posted this just to stir the pot? Or are you actually interested in reading other people's perspectives with a view toward an actual conversation?

Sometimes stirring the pot gets the juices flowing around here. I have no idea where Clark is coming from but I doubt that what he is doing is considered treason. Sadaam Hussien is not being tried for getting wrongly removed from office (his apparent defense), but rather he is being tried for murdering his own citizens. I can't see why Clark would want to defend this guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in essence, you posted this just to stir the pot? Or are you actually interested in reading other people's perspectives with a view toward an actual conversation?

It was posted for the same reason the hundreds and hundreds of Bush bashing threads that have been started on this board: "Enlightened" discussion, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to wonder just what the hell Ramsey Clark is after by doing this. He isn't going to get much good press or fame because no one is "pro-Saddam". This isn't a poor man who may have been wrongly accused here, this is a vicious lunatic that lived in luxary while infants in his country died of starvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to wonder just what the hell Ramsey Clark is after by doing this. He isn't going to get much good press or fame because no one is "pro-Saddam". This isn't a poor man who may have been wrongly accused here, this is a vicious lunatic that lived in luxary while infants in his country died of starvation.

There was an ACLU lawyer on CNN last night defending Clark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes stirring the pot gets the juices flowing around here. I have no idea where Clark is coming from but I doubt that what he is doing is considered treason. Sadaam Hussien is not being tried for getting wrongly removed from office (his apparent defense), but rather he is being tried for murdering his own citizens. I can't see why Clark would want to defend this guy.

Sure. That's definitely true--if either side ever gave the other any credit. These threads tend to degrade and devolve into the same mud slinging nearly every time. Especially when they are introduced in the context in which nelms started this one. He's certainly not the only one to do this. As he corrects states, both sides engage in this. I wonder if both sides aren't just tired of reading and writing the same things though given how rarely any concessions are made on either side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the ACLU lawyers reasoning?

It was on Paula Zahn's show last night. The discussion was whether or not Clark was committing treason. The ACLU lawyer basically said that it wasn't treason because Clark was defending a foreigner on foreign soil. To tell you the truth, this guy was so over the top, I couldn't follow his reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if both sides aren't just tired of reading and writing the same things though given how rarely any concessions are made on either side.

no doubt your question will go unnoticed, as everyone is busy typing back and forth . :silly:

good question though... one I've asked on occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if both sides aren't just tired of reading and writing the same things though given how rarely any concessions are made on either side.

No, the political threads are a medium (read battleground) and concessions would end the war. The bashing is classic slapstick from the stands. To

moderate would be to ruin the entertainment value. Who's complaining?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. That's definitely true--if either side ever gave the other any credit. These threads tend to degrade and devolve into the same mud slinging nearly every time. Especially when they are introduced in the context in which nelms started this one. He's certainly not the only one to do this. As he corrects states, both sides engage in this. I wonder if both sides aren't just tired of reading and writing the same things though given how rarely any concessions are made on either side.

Yes, I am for one. I like to have discussions with a lot of posters here, but the 2-bit mud slinging gets tiresome. . . and yes, I do acknowledge that I am responsible for some of it, but I try never to start it, only to finish it :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the political threads are a medium (read battleground) and concessions would end the war. The bashing is classic slapstick from the stands. To

moderate would be to ruin the entertainment value. Who's complaining?

There's plenty of people complaining. Just check out the pinned thread about reporting posts. Looks like there are plenty of people that can dish it out, but can't take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the political threads are a medium (read battleground) and concessions would end the war. The bashing is classic slapstick from the stands. To

moderate would be to ruin the entertainment value. Who's complaining?

It's not about having to be moderate, it's about an actual exchange of ideas where there's a conversation.

There's nothing slapstick about what we all have to read week in, week out where members of both parties look constantly for ways to disparage the other. It's the same agenda and dogma spouted endlessly. What's the point given that it's not funny, and no one gains or learns anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always been of the opinion that defense lawyers do a good to society by defending even the obviously guilty. You go through a trial so that it is proven that this guy did what he did in a court of law. You want all the people who believe saddam was wrongly accused to be able to read throught the transcripts of the trial and see each of the possible objections dismissed.

The purpose of these courts especially is to put down all the information about our reasons for killing saddam all in one place. The best way to do that is to have a competant defense team keeping the prosecution honest. That back and forth is what helps find the truth. Defending Saddam isn't about liking him, or even a desire to see him set free. To me defending saddam is about spreading american values. Everyone gets thier day in court, but the rule of law has the final say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to wonder just what the hell Ramsey Clark is after by doing this. He isn't going to get much good press or fame because no one is "pro-Saddam". This isn't a poor man who may have been wrongly accused here, this is a vicious lunatic that lived in luxary while infants in his country died of starvation.

That may be so, but you have to admit that Saddam despite being evil deserves a fair trial. Right? Well perhaps Ramsey Clark knows like you should that due to political reasons it is very likely that he will not be allowed to have a fair trial because there is nothing to gain by any major players by giving him one. The Iraqi government made of exiles doesn't want to give him one, and the US knows that if by some chance Saddam gets off then there will be negative consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. That's definitely true--if either side ever gave the other any credit. These threads tend to degrade and devolve into the same mud slinging nearly every time. Especially when they are introduced in the context in which nelms started this one. He's certainly not the only one to do this. As he corrects states, both sides engage in this. I wonder if both sides aren't just tired of reading and writing the same things though given how rarely any concessions are made on either side.

I understand what you are saying, and I only started posting in the Tailgate 4 or 5 months ago, but I think that sometimes we are learning from opposite perspectives, even if we don't often openly concede a point.

Since most of the players "know" each other by now, we tend to respect each other even when we are bashing each other's opinions. Most of the conservative writers respect and like Chomerics in spite of his persistent anti-Bush administration views. Friends can argue and even throw in an insult or two if something clever comes to mind and most of the time it's entertaining even for the target.

The Tailgate forum seems to be more stable, with a lot fewer drive by attacks by strangers, than the Stadium forum.

One thing is sure: Given what many have posted, including myself, regarding the Bush Administration, this post by Nelms was not out of bounds at all. And I really have to wonder what Ramsey Clark is trying to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing slapstick about what we all have to read week in, week out where members of both parties look constantly for ways to disparage the other. It's the same agenda and dogma spouted endlessly. What's the point given that it's not funny, and no one gains or learns anything.

Maybe it's my twisted sense of humor, or I haven't been here long enough for it to get old.

:munchout:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be so, but you have to admit that Saddam despite being evil deserves a fair trial. Right? Well perhaps Ramsey Clark knows like you should that due to political reasons it is very likely that he will not be allowed to have a fair trial because there is nothing to gain by any major players by giving him one. The Iraqi government made of exiles doesn't want to give him one, and the US knows that if by some chance Saddam gets off then there will be negative consequences.

That would be the noble motivation, in the cause of justice. But since apparently Clark was against the war from the start you have to wonder if his motivation isn't to try to embarass the Bush Administration. Hussien's defense so far seems to center around an illegal occupation rather than a denial of his murderous rule. Only time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be so, but you have to admit that Saddam despite being evil deserves a fair trial. Right? Well perhaps Ramsey Clark knows like you should that due to political reasons it is very likely that he will not be allowed to have a fair trial because there is nothing to gain by any major players by giving him one. The Iraqi government made of exiles doesn't want to give him one, and the US knows that if by some chance Saddam gets off then there will be negative consequences.

Fine, let the ACLU defend him.

Ramsey Clark was the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL for crying out loud. This guy has said some messed up things in the past, but this latest escapade takes the cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he's not giving away information... cant be treason/sedition.

If he's not hurting the U.S. globally/locall.. can't be treason/sedition.

I don't agree with him but if he's certified to practice in an Iraqi court to help Saddam "not die" what do I care?

It all depends on how far he is willing to go Against the U.S. FOR Saddam. Defending him should be looked upon favorably as its what we do here for Rich people that do bad things. :)

It's really hard to type this also...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...